Search Site

SHOULD WE LIVE
TOGETHER?What Young Adults Need to Know about
Cohabitation before Marriage

A Comprehensive Review of Recent
Research

David Popenoe and Barbara
Dafoe Whitehead

THE NATIONAL MARRIAGE PROJECT :
The Next Generation Series

Executive Summary

Cohabitation is replacing marriage as the
first living together experience for young men and women.
When blushing brides walk down the aisle in the 1990s, more than
half have already lived together with a boyfriend.

For today's young adults, the first
generation to come of age during the divorce revolution, living
together seems like a good way to achieve some of the benefits of
marriage and avoid the risk of divorce. Couples who live
together can share expenses and learn more about each other.
They can find out if their partner has what it takes to be
married. If things don't work out, breaking up is easy to
do. Cohabiting couples do not have to seek legal or religious
permission to dissolve their union. Not surprisingly,
young adults favor cohabitation. According to surveys, most
young people say it is a good idea to live with a person before
marrying.

But a careful review of the available
social science evidence suggests that living together is not a good
way to prepare for marriage or to avoid divorce. What's more,
it shows that the rise in cohabitation is not a positive family
trend. Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of
marriage and pose clear and present dangers for women and
children. Specifically, the research indicates that: · Living
together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after
marriage. · Living together outside of marriage increases the risk
of domestic violence for women, and the risk of physical and sexual
abuse for children. · Unmarried couples have lower levels of
happiness and well-being than married couples.

Because this generation of young adults is
so keenly aware of the fragility of marriage, it is especially
important for them to know what contributes to marital success and
what may threaten it. Yet many young people do not know the
basic facts about cohabitation and its risks. Nor are
parents, teachers, clergy and others who instruct the young in
matters of sex, love and marriage well acquainted with the social
science evidence. Therefore, one purpose of this paper is to report
on the available research.

At the same time, we recognize the larger
social and cultural trends that make cohabiting relationships
attractive to many young adults today. Unmarried
cohabitation is not likely to go away. Given this reality,
the second purpose of this paper is to guide thinking on the
question: "should we live together?" We offer four principles
that may help. These principles may not be the last words on the
subject but they are consistent with the available evidence and
seem most likely to help never-married young adults avoid painful
losses in their love lives and achieve satisfying and long-lasting
relationships and marriage.

l. Consider not living together at all
before marriage. Cohabitation appears not to be helpful and may
be harmful as a try-out for marriage. There is no evidence that if
you decide to cohabit before marriage you will have a stronger
marriage than those who don't live together, and some evidence to
suggest that if you live together before marriage, you are more
likely to break up after marriage. Cohabitation is probably
least harmful (though not necessarily helpful) when it is
prenuptial - when both partners are definitely planning to marry,
have formally announced their engagement and have picked a wedding
date.

2. Do not make a habit of
cohabiting. Be aware of the dangers of multiple living
together experiences, both for your own sense of well-being and for
your chances of establishing a strong lifelong partnership.
Contrary to popular wisdom, you do not learn to have better
relationships from multiple failed cohabiting relationships. In
fact, multiple cohabiting is a strong predictor of the failure of
future relationships.

3. Limit cohabitation to the
shortest possible period of time. The longer you live together
with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic
of cohabitation will take hold, the opposite of what is required
for a successful marriage.

4. Do not cohabit if children are
involved. Children need and should have parents who are
committed to staying together over the long term. Cohabiting
parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents and the
effects of breakup can be devastating and often long
lasting. Moreover, children living in cohabiting unions
are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence, including
lethal violence, than are children living with married
parents.

SHOULD WE LIVE TOGETHER? What Young
Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation before
Marriage

A Comprehensive Review of Recent
Research

Living together before marriage is one of
America's most significant and unexpected family trends. By
simple definition, living together-or
unmarried cohabitation--is the status of
couples who are sexual partners, not married to each other, and
sharing a household. By 1997, the total number of unmarried couples
in America topped 4 million, up from less than half a million in
1960.1 It is estimated that about a quarter
of
unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 39
are currently living with a partner and about half have lived at
some time with an unmarried
partner (the data are typically reported for
women but not for men). Over half of all first marriages are
now preceded by cohabitation, compared to virtually none earlier in
the century.2

What makes cohabitation so significant is
not only its prevalence but also its widespread popular
acceptance. In recent representative national surveys nearly
60% of high school seniors indicated that they "agreed" or "mostly
agreed" with the statement "it is usually a good idea for a couple
to live together before getting married in order to find out
whether they really get along." And nearly three quarters of the
students, slightly more girls than boys, stated that "a man and a
woman who live together without being married" are either
"experimenting with a worthwhile alternative lifestyle" or "doing
their own thing and not affecting anyone
else."3

Unlike divorce or unwed childbearing, the
trend toward cohabitation has inspired virtually no public comment
or criticism. It is hard to believe that across America, only
thirty years ago, living together for unmarried, heterosexual
couples was against the law.4 And it was
considered immoral--living in sin--or at the very least highly
improper. Women who provided sexual and housekeeping services
to a man without the benefits of marriage were regarded as fools at
best and morally loose at worst. A double standard existed,
but cohabiting men were certainly not regarded with
approbation.

Today, the old view of cohabitation seems
yet another example of the repressive Victorian norms. The
new view is that cohabitation represents a more progressive
approach to intimate relationships. How much healthier women
are to be free of social pressure to marry and stigma when they
don't. How much better off people are today to be able to
exercise choice in their sexual and domestic arrangements.
How much better off marriage can be, and how many divorces can be
avoided, when sexual relationships start with a trial
period.

Surprisingly, much of the accumulating
social science research suggests otherwise. What most
cohabiting couples don't know, and what in fact few people know,
are the conclusions of many recent studies on unmarried
cohabitation and its implications for young people and for
society. Living together before marriage may seem like a
harmless or even a progressive family trend until one takes a
careful look at the evidence.

HOW LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE MARRIAGE MAY
CONTRIBUTE TO MARITAL FAILURE

The vast majority of young women today
want to marry and have children. And many of these women and
most young men see cohabitation as a way to test marital
compatibility and improve the chances of long-lasting
marriage. Their reasoning is as follows: Given the high
levels of divorce, why be in a hurry to marry? Why not test
marital compatibility by sharing a bed and a bathroom with for a
year or even longer? If it doesn't work out, one can
simply move out. According to this reasoning,
cohabitation weeds out unsuitable partners through a process of
natural de-selection. Over time, perhaps after several
living-together relationships, a person will eventually find a
marriageable mate.

The social science evidence challenges
this idea that cohabiting ensures greater marital compatibility and
thereby promotes stronger and more enduring marriages. Cohabitation
does not reduce the likelihood of eventual divorce; in fact, it may
lead to a higher divorce risk. Although the association was
stronger a decade or two ago and has diminished in the younger
generations, virtually all research on the topic has determined
that the chances of divorce ending a marriage preceded by
cohabitation are significantly greater than for a marriage not
preceded by cohabitation. A 1992 study of 3,300 cases, for example,
based on the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households, found
that in their marriages prior cohabitors "are estimated to have a
hazard of dissolution that is about 46% higher than for
noncohabitors." The authors of this study concluded, after
reviewing all previous studies, that the enhanced risk of marital
disruption following cohabitation "is beginning to take on the
status of an empirical generalization."5

More in question within the research
community is why the striking statistical association between
cohabitation and divorce should exist. Perhaps the most
obvious explanation is that those people willing to cohabit are
more unconventional than others and less committed to the
institution of marriage. These are the same people then, who
more easily will leave a marriage if it becomes troublesome.
By this explanation, cohabitation doesn't cause divorce but is
merely associated with it because the same type of people is
involved in both phenomena.

There is some empirical support for this
position. Yet even when this "selection effect" is carefully
controlled statistically a negative effect of cohabitation on later
marriage stability still remains.6 And no positive
contribution of cohabitation to marriage has been ever been
found.

The reasons for cohabitation's negative
effect are not fully understood. One may be that while marriages
are held together largely by a strong ethic of commitment,
cohabiting relationships by their very nature tend to undercut this
ethic. Although cohabiting relationships are like marriages in many
ways-shared dwelling, economic union (at least in part), sexual
intimacy, often even children-they typically differ in the levels
of commitment and autonomy involved. According to recent
studies cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples
in their dedication to the continuation of the relationship and
reluctance to terminate it, and they are more oriented toward their
own personal autonomy.7 It is reasonable to
speculate, based on these studies, that once this low-commitment,
high-autonomy pattern of relating is learned, it becomes hard to
unlearn.

The results of several studies suggest
that cohabitation may change partners' attitudes toward the
institution of marriage, contributing to either making marriage
less likely, or if marriage takes place, less successful. A
1997 longitudinal study conducted by demographers at Pennsylvania
State University concluded, for example, "cohabitation increased
young people's acceptance of divorce, but other independent living
experiences did not." And "the more months of exposure to
cohabitation that young people experienced, the less enthusiastic
they were toward marriage and childbearing."8

Particularly problematic is serial
cohabitation. One study determined that the effect of
cohabitation on later marital instability is found only when one or
both partners had previously cohabited with someone other than
their spouse.9 A reason for this could be
that the experience of dissolving one cohabiting relationship
generates a greater willingness to dissolve later
relationships. People's tolerance for unhappiness is
diminished, and they will scrap a marriage that might otherwise be
salvaged. This may be similar to the attitudinal effects of
divorce; going through a divorce makes one more tolerant of
divorce.

If the conclusions of these studies hold
up under further investigation, they may hold the answer to the
question of why premarital cohabitation should effect the stability
of a later marriage. The act of cohabitation generates
changes in people's attitudes toward marriage that make the
stability of marriage less likely. Society wide, therefore,
the growth of cohabitation will tend to further weaken marriage as
an institution.

An important caveat must be inserted
here. There is a growing understanding among researchers that
different types and life-patterns of cohabitation must be
distinguished clearly from each other. Cohabitation that is
an immediate prelude to marriage, or prenuptial cohabitation-both
partners plan to marry each other in the near future-is different
from cohabitation that is an alternative to marriage. There is some
evidence to support the proposition that living together for a
short period of time with the person one intends to marry has no
adverse effects on the subsequent marriage. Cohabitation in this
case appears to be very similar to marriage; it merely takes place
during the engagement period.10 This proposition
would appear to be less true, however, when one or both of the
partners has had prior experience with cohabitation, or brings
children into the relationship.

COHABITATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
MARRIAGE
Most cohabiting relationships are relatively
short lived and an estimated 60% end in
marriage.11 Still, a surprising number are
essentially alternatives to marriage and that number is
increasing. This should be of great national concern, not
only for what the growth of cohabitation is doing to the
institution of marriage but for what it is doing, or not doing, for
the participants involved. In general, cohabiting relationships
tend to be less satisfactory than marriage
relationships.

Except perhaps for the short term
prenuptial type of cohabitation, and probably also for the
post-marriage cohabiting relationships of seniors and retired
people who typically cohabit rather than marry for economic
reasons,12 cohabitation and marriage relationships
are qualitatively different. Cohabiting couples report lower levels
of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual
satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their
parents.13 One reason is that, as several
sociologists not surprisingly concluded after a careful analysis,
in unmarried cohabitation "levels of certainty about the
relationship are lower than in marriage."14

It is easy to understand, therefore, why
cohabiting is inherently much less stable than marriage and why,
especially in view of the fact that it is easier to terminate, the
break-up rate of cohabitors is far higher than for married
partners. Within two years about half of all cohabiting
relationships end in either marriage or a parting of the ways, and
after five years only about 10% of couples are still cohabiting
(data from the late 1980s).15 In comparison, only
about 45% of first marriages today are expected to break up over
the course of a lifetime.16

Still not widely known by the public at
large is the fact that married couples have substantial benefits
over the unmarried in terms of labor force productivity, physical
and mental health, general happiness, and
longevity.17 There is evidence that these benefits
are diluted for couples who are not married but merely
cohabiting.18 Among the probable reasons for the
benefits of marriage, as summarized by University of Chicago
demographer Linda Waite,19 are: 1) The
long-term contract implicit in marriage. This facilitates
emotional investment in the relationship, including the close
monitoring of each other's behavior. The longer time horizon
also makes specialization more likely; working as a couple,
individuals can develop those skills in which they excel, leaving
others to their partner. 2) The greater sharing of
economic and social resources by married couples. In addition
to economies of scale, this enables couples to act as a small
insurance pool against life uncertainties, reducing each person's
need to protect themselves from unexpected events. 3) The
better connection of married couples to the larger community.
This includes other individuals and groups (such as in-laws) as
well as social institutions such as churches and synagogues.
These can be important sources of social and emotional support and
material benefits.

In addition to missing out on many of the
benefits of marriage, cohabitors may face more serious
difficulties. Annual rates of depression among cohabiting
couples are more than three times what they are among married
couples.20 And women in cohabiting
relationships are more likely than married women to suffer physical
and sexual abuse. Some research has shown that aggression is at
least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married
partners.21

Again, the selection factor is undoubtedly
strong in findings such as these. But the most careful
statistical probing suggests that selection is not the only factor
at work; the intrinsic nature of the cohabiting relationship also
plays a role.

WHY COHABITATION IS HARMFUL FOR
CHILDREN

Of all the types of cohabitation, that
involving children is by far the most problematic. In 1997,
36% of all unmarried-couple households included a child under
eighteen, up from only 21% in 1987.22 For
unmarried couples in the 25-34 age group the percentage with
children is higher still, approaching half of all such
households.23 By one recent estimate nearly half
of all children today will spend some time in a cohabiting family
before age 16.24

One of the greatest problems for children
living with a cohabiting couple is the high risk that the couple
will break up.25 Fully three quarters of children
born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before
they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born
to married parents face a similar fate. One reason is that
marriage rates for cohabiting couples have been plummeting.
In the last decade, the proportion of cohabiting mothers who go on
to eventually marry the child's father declined from 57% to
44%.26

Parental break up, as is now widely
known, almost always entails a myriad of personal and social
difficulties for children, some of which can be long lasting.
For the children of a cohabiting couple these may come on top of a
plethora of already existing problems. One study found that
children currently living with a mother and her unmarried partner
had significantly more behavior problems and lower academic
performance than children from intact
families.27

It is important to note that the great
majority of children in unmarried-couple households were born not
in the present union but in a previous union of one of the adult
partners, usually the mother.28 This means that
they are living with an unmarried stepfather or mother's boyfriend,
with whom the economic and social relationships are often
tenuous. For example, these children have no claim to child
support should the couple separate.

Child abuse has become a major national
problem and has increased dramatically in recent years, by more
than 10% a year according to one estimate.29 In
the opinion of most researchers, this increase is related strongly
to changing family forms. Surprisingly, the available American data
do not enable us to distinguish the abuse that takes place in
married-couple households from that in cohabiting-couple
households. We do have abuse-prevalence studies that look at
stepparent families (both married and unmarried) and mother's
boyfriends (both cohabiting and dating). Both show far
higher levels of child abuse than is found in intact
families.30

One study in Great Britain did look at the
relationship between child abuse and the family structure and
marital background of parents, and the results are
disturbing. It was found that, compared to children living
with married biological parents, children living with cohabiting
but unmarried biological parents are 20 times more likely to be
subject to child abuse, and those living with a mother and a
cohabiting boyfriend who is not the father face an increased risk
of 33 times. In contrast, the rate of abuse is 14 times higher if
the child lives with a biological mother who lives alone. Indeed,
the evidence suggests that the most unsafe of all family
environments for children is that in which the mother is living
with someone other than the child's biological
father.31 This is the environment for the majority
of children in cohabiting couple households.

Part of the enormous differences
indicated above are probably due to differing income levels of the
families involved. But this points up one of the other
problems of cohabiting couples-their lower incomes. It is well
known that children of single parents fare poorly economically when
compared to the children of married parents. Not so well
known is that cohabiting couples are economically more like single
parents than like married couples. While the 1996 poverty rate for
children living in married couple households was about 6%, it was
31% for children living in cohabiting households, much closer to
the rate of 45% for children living in families headed by single
mothers.32

One of the most important social science
findings of recent years is that marriage is a wealth enhancing
institution. According to one study, childrearing cohabiting
couples have only about two-thirds of the income of married couples
with children, mainly due to the fact that the average income of
male cohabiting partners is only about half that of male married
partners.33 The selection effect is surely at work
here, with less well-off men and their partners choosing
cohabitation over marriage. But it also is the case that men
when they marry, especially those who then go on to have children,
tend to become more responsible and productive.34
They earn more than their unmarried counterparts. An
additional factor not to be overlooked is the private transfer of
wealth among extended family members, which is considerably lower
for cohabiting couples than for married couples.35
It is clear that family members are more willing to transfer wealth
to "in-laws" than to mere boyfriends or girlfriends.

WHO COHABITS AND WHY

Why has unmarried cohabitation become such
a widespread practice throughout the modern world in such a short
period of time? Demographic factors are surely
involved. Puberty begins at an earlier age, as does the onset
of sexual activity, and marriages take place at older ages mainly
because of the longer time period spent getting educated and
establishing careers. Thus there is an extended period of
sexually active singlehood before first marriage. Also, our
material affluence as well as welfare benefits enable many young
people to live on their own for an extended time, apart from their
parents. During those years of young adulthood nonmarital
cohabitation can be a cost-saver, a source of companionship, and an
assurance of relatively safe sexual fulfillment. For some,
cohabitation is a prelude to marriage, for some, an alternative to
it, and for yet others, simply an alternative to living
alone.36

More broadly, the rise of cohabitation in
the advanced nations has been attributed to the sexual revolution,
which has virtually revoked the stigma against
cohabitation.37 In the past thirty years, with the
advent of effective contraceptive technologies and widespread
sexual permissiveness promoted by advertising and the organized
entertainment industry, premarital sex has become widely accepted.
In large segments of the population cohabitation no longer is
associated with sin or social impropriety or pathology, nor are
cohabiting couples subject to much, if any, disapproval.

Another important reason for
cohabitation's growth is that the institution of marriage has
changed dramatically, leading to an erosion of confidence in its
stability. From a tradition strongly buttressed by economics,
religion, and the law, marriage has become a more personalized
relationship, what one wag has referred to as a mere "notarized
date." People used to marry not just for love but also for
family and economic considerations, and if love died during the
course of a marriage, this was not considered sufficient reason to
break up an established union. A divorce was legally
difficult if not impossible to get, and people who divorced faced
enormous social stigma.

In today's marriages love is all,
and it is a love tied to self-fulfillment. Divorce is
available to everyone, with little stigma attached. If either
love or a sense of self-fulfillment disappear, the marriage is
considered to be over and divorce is the logical
outcome.

Fully aware of this new fragility of
marriage, people are taking cautionary actions. The attitude
is either try it out first and make sure that it will work, or try
to minimize the damage of breakup by settling for a weaker form of
union, one that avoids a marriage license and, if need be, an
eventual divorce.

The growth of cohabitation is also
associated with the rise of feminism. Traditional marriage,
both in law and in practice, typically involved male
leadership. For some women, cohabitation seemingly avoids the
legacy of patriarchy and at the same time provides more personal
autonomy and equality in the relationship. Moreover, women's
shift into the labor force and their growing economic independence
make marriage less necessary and, for some, less
desirable.

Underlying all of these trends is the
broad cultural shift from a more religious society where marriage
was considered the bedrock of civilization and people were imbued
with a strong sense of social conformity and tradition, to a more
secular society focused on individual autonomy and self
invention. This cultural rejection of traditional
institutional and moral authority, evident in all of the advanced,
Western societies, often has had "freedom of choice" as its theme
and the acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" as its
message.

In general, cohabitation is a phenomenon
that began among the young in the lower classes and then moved up
to the middle classes.38
Cohabitation in America-especially cohabitation as an alternative
to marriage-is more common among Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and
disadvantaged white women. One reason for this is that male
income and employment are lower among minorities and the lower
classes, and male economic status remains an important determinant
as to whether or not a man feels ready to marry, and a woman wants
to marry him.40 Cohabitation is also more common
among those who are less religious than their peers. Indeed,
some evidence suggests that the act of cohabitation actually
diminishes religious participation, whereas marriage tends to
increase it.41

People who cohabit are much more likely to
come from broken homes. Among young adults, those who experienced
parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord
during childhood are more likely to form cohabiting unions than
children who grew up in families with married parents who got
along. They are also more likely to enter living-together
relationships at younger ages.42 For young people
who have already suffered the losses associated with parental
divorce, cohabitation may provide an early escape from family
turmoil, although unfortunately it increases the likelihood of new
losses and turmoil. For these people, cohabitation often
recapitulates the childhood experience of coming together and
splitting apart with the additional possibility of more violent
conflict. Finally, cohabitation is a much more likely
experience for those who themselves have been divorced.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR AND
AGAINST LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE MARRIAGE IN MODERN
SOCIETIES?

To the degree that there is a scholarly
debate about the growth of cohabitation, it is typically polarized
into "for" and "against" without much concern for the
nuances. On one side is the religiously inspired view
that living with someone outside of marriage, indeed all premarital
sex, represents an assault on the sanctity of marriage. If you are
ready for sex you are ready for marriage, the argument goes, and
the two should always go together, following biblical
injunction. This side is typically supportive of early
marriage as an antidote to sexual promiscuity, and as worthwhile in
its own right.

The other side, based in secular thought,
holds that we can't realistically expect people to remain sexually
abstinent from today's puberty at age eleven or twelve (even
earlier for some) to marriage in the late twenties, which is
empirically the most desirable age for insuring a lasting union.
Therefore, it is better that they cohabit during that time with a
few others than be promiscuous with many. This side also
finds the idea of a trial marriage quite appealing. Modern
societies in any event, the argument goes, have become so highly
sexualized and the practice of cohabitation has become so widely
accepted that there is no way to stop it.

The anti-cohabitation perspective believes
in linking sex to marriage, but fails to answer the question of how
to postpone sex until marriage at a time when the age of marriage
has risen to an average of almost 26, the highest in this
century. Cold showers, anyone? Nor is there evidence to
support the idea that marriage at a younger age is a good
solution. On the contrary, marrying later in life seems to
provide some protection against divorce. Teenage marriages,
for example, have a much higher risk of breaking up than do
marriages among young adults in their twenties. The reasons are
fairly obvious; at older ages people are more emotionally mature
and established in their jobs and careers, and usually better able
to know what they want in a lifetime mate.

Pro-cohabitation arguments recognize the
demographic and social realities but fail to answer another
question: if the aim is to have a strong, lifelong marriage, and
for most people it still is, can cohabitation be of any help? As we
have seen the statistical data are unsupportive on this
point. So far, at least, living together before marriage has
been remarkably unsuccessful as a generator of happy and
long-lasting marriages.

SHOULD UNMARRIED COHABITATION BE
INSTITUTIONALIZED?

If marriage has been moving toward
decreased social and legal recognition and control, cohabitation
has moved in the opposite direction, steadily gaining social and
legal identification as a distinct new institution.
Cohabitation was illegal in all states prior to about 1970 and,
although the law is seldom enforced, it remains illegal in a number
of states. No state has yet established cohabitation as a legal
relationship, but most states have now decriminalized "consensual
sexual acts" among adults, which include cohabitation.

In lieu of state laws, some marriage-like
rights of cohabitors have gradually been established through the
courts. The law typically comes into play, for example, when
cohabitors who split up have disagreements about the division of
property, when one of the partners argues that some kind of oral or
implicit marriage-like contract existed, and when the courts accept
this position. Whereas property claims by cohabitors traditionally
have been denied on the ground that "parties to an illegal
relationship do not have rights based on that relationship," courts
have begun to rule more frequently that cohabitors do have certain
rights based on such concepts as "equitable
principles."43

The legal changes underway mean that
cohabitation is becoming less of a "no-strings attached"
phenomenon, one involving some of the benefits of marriage with
none of the costly legal procedures and financial consequences of
divorce. In the most famous case, Marvin vs. Marvin, what the
news media labeled "palimony" in place of alimony was sought by a
woman with whom Hollywood actor Lee Marvin lived for many
years. The Supreme Court of California upheld the woman's
claim of an implied contract. Many states have not accepted key
elements of the Marvin decision, and the financial award of
palimony was eventually rejected on appeal. Yet the
proposition that unmarried couples have the right to form contracts
has come to be widely acknowledged.

In an attempt to reduce the uncertainties
of the legal system, some cohabitors are now initiating formal
"living together contracts."45 Some of these
contracts state clearly, with the intent of avoiding property
entanglements should the relationship break down, that the
relationship is not a marriage but merely "two free and independent
human beings who happen to live together." Others, in contrast,
seek to secure the rights of married couples in such matters as
inheritance and child custody. Marriage-like fiscal and legal
benefits are also beginning to come to cohabiting couples. In
the attempt to provide for gay and lesbian couples, for whom
marriage is forbidden, many corporations, universities,
municipalities, and even some states now provide "domestic
partnership" benefits ranging from health insurance and pensions to
the right to inherit the lease of a rent controlled apartment. In
the process, such benefits have commonly been offered to unmarried
heterosexual couples as well, one reason being to avoid lawsuits
charging "illegal discrimination." Although the legal issues
have only begun to be considered, the courts are likely to hold
that the withholding of benefits from heterosexual cohabitors when
they are offered to same-sex couples is a violation of U. S. laws
against sex discrimination.

Religions have also started to reconsider
cohabitation. Some religions have developed "commitment
ceremonies" as an alternative to marriage ceremonies. So far
these are mainly intended for same-sex couples and in some cases
the elderly, but it seems only a matter of time before their
purview is broadened.

Unlike in the United States, cohabitation
has become an accepted new social institution in most northern
European countries, and in several Scandinavian nations cohabitors
have virtually the same legal rights as married couples. In
Sweden and Denmark, for example, the world's cohabitation leaders,
cohabitors and married couples have the same rights and obligations
in taxation, welfare benefits, inheritance, and child care.
Only a few differences remain, such as the right to adopt children,
but even that difference may soon disappear. Not
incidentally, Sweden also has the lowest marriage rate ever
recorded (and one of the highest divorce rates); an estimated 30%
of all couples sharing a household in Sweden today are
unmarried.46 For many Swedish and Danish couples
cohabiting has become an alternative rather than a prelude to
marriage, and almost all marriages in these nations are now
preceded by cohabitation.

Is America moving toward the Scandinavian
family model? Sweden and Denmark are the world's most secular
societies, and some argue that American religiosity will work
against increasing levels of cohabitation. Yet few religions
prohibit cohabitation or even actively attempt to discourage it, so
the religious barrier may be quite weak. Others argue that most
Americans draw a sharper distinction than Scandinavians do between
cohabitation and marriage, viewing marriage as a higher and more
serious form of commitment. But as the practice of
cohabitation in America becomes increasingly common, popular
distinctions between cohabitation and marriage are fading. In
short, the legal, social and religious barriers to cohabitation are
weak and likely to get weaker. Unless there is an unexpected
turnaround, America and the other Anglo countries, plus the rest of
northern Europe, do appear to be headed in the direction of
Scandinavia.

The institutionalization of
cohabitation in the public and private sectors has potentially
serious social consequences that need to be carefully
considered. At first glance, in a world where close
relationships are in increasingly short supply, why not recognize
and support such relationships in whatever form they occur?
Surely this is the approach that would seem to blend social justice
and compassion with the goal of personal freedom. But is it
not in society's greater interest to foster long-term, committed
relationships among childrearing couples? In this regard the
advantages of marriage are substantial. It is only marriage
that has the implicit long-term contract, the greater sharing of
economic and social resources, and the better connection to the
larger community.

The recognition and support of unmarried
cohabitation unfortunately casts marriage as merely one of several
alternative lifestyle choices. As the alternatives to it are
strengthened, the institution of marriage is bound to weaken.
After all, if cohabitors have the same rights and responsibilities
as married couples, why bother to marry? Why bother, indeed, if
society itself expresses no strong preference one way or the other.
It is simpler and less complicated to live together. The expansion
of domestic partner benefits to heterosexual cohabiting couples,
then, may be an easy way to avoid legal challenges, but the
troubling issue arises: cities and private businesses that extend
these benefits are in effect subsidizing the formation of fragile
family forms. Even more troublingly, they are subsidizing
family forms that pose increased risks of violence to women and
children. While the granting of certain marriage-like legal
rights to cohabiting couples may be advisable in some circumstances
to protect children and other dependents in the event of couple
break up, an extensive granting of such rights serves to undercut
an essential institution that is already established to regulate
family relationships. These issues, at the least, should
cause us to proceed toward the further institutionalization of
unmarried cohabitation only after very careful deliberation and
forethought.

SOME PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PRACTICE
OF COHABITATION BEFORE MARRIAGE

Unmarried cohabitation has become a
prominent feature of modern life and is undoubtedly here to stay in
some form. The demographic, economic, and cultural forces of
modern life would appear to be too strong to permit any society
merely to turn back the clock, even if it so desired. Yet by
all of the empirical evidence at our disposal, not to mention the
wisdom of the ages, the institution of marriage remains a
cornerstone of a successful society. And the practice of
cohabitation, far from being a friend of marriage, looks more and
more like its enemy. As a goal of social change, therefore,
perhaps the best that we can hope for is to contain cohabitation in
ways that minimize its damage to marriage.

With that goal in mind, are there any
principles that we might give to young adults to guide their
thinking about living together before marriage? In developing such
principles it is important to note that, because men and women
differ somewhat in their sexual and mate-selection strategies,
cohabitation often has a different meaning for each sex.
Women tend to see it as a step toward eventual marriage, while men
regard it more as a sexual opportunity without the ties of
long-term commitment. A woman's willingness to cohabit runs the
risk of sending men precisely the wrong signal. What our
grandmothers supposedly knew might well be true: If a woman truly
wants a man to marry her, wisdom dictates a measure of playing hard
to get.47

Pulling together what we know from recent
social science research about cohabitation and its effects, here
are four principles concerning living together before marriage that
seem most likely to promote, or at least not curtail, long-term
committed relationships among childrearing couples:

1. Consider not living together at all
before marriage. Cohabitation appears not to be helpful and may be
harmful as a try-out for marriage. There is no evidence that if you
decide to cohabit before marriage you will have a stronger marriage
than those who don't live together, and some evidence to suggest
that if you live together before marriage, you are more likely to
break up after marriage. Cohabitation is probably least
harmful (though not necessarily helpful) when it is prenuptial -
when both partners are definitely planning to marry, have formally
announced their engagement and have picked a wedding
date.

2. Do not make a habit of
cohabiting. Be aware of the dangers of multiple living
together experiences, both for your own sense of well-being and for
your chances of establishing a strong lifelong partnership.
Contrary to popular wisdom, you do not learn to have better
relationships from multiple failed cohabiting relationships. In
fact, multiple cohabiting is a strong predictor of the failure of
future relationships.

3. Limit cohabitation to the shortest
possible period of time. The longer you live together with a
partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic of
cohabitation will take hold, the opposite of what is required for a
successful marriage.

4. Do not cohabit if children are
involved. Children need and should have parents who are
committed to staying together over the long term. Cohabiting
parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents and the
effects of breakup can be devastating and often long
lasting. Moreover, children living in cohabiting unions
are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence, including
lethal violence, than are children living with married
parents.

CONCLUSION

Despite its widespread acceptance by the
young, the remarkable growth of unmarried cohabitation in recent
years does not appear to be in children's or the society's best
interest. The evidence suggests that it has weakened marriage
and the intact, two-parent family and thereby damaged our social
well-being, especially that of women and children. We can not go
back in history, but it seems time to establish some guidelines for
the practice of cohabitation and to seriously question the further
institutionalization of this new family form.

In place of institutionalizing
cohabitation, in our opinion, we should be trying to revitalize
marriage-not along classic male-dominant lines but along modern
egalitarian lines. Particularly helpful in this regard would be
educating young people about marriage from the early school years
onward, getting them to make the wisest choices in their lifetime
mates, and stressing the importance of long-term commitment to
marriages. Such an educational venture could build on the
fact that a huge majority of our nation's young people still
express the strong desire to be in a long-term monogamous
marriage.

These ideas are offered to the American
public and especially to society's leaders in the spirit of
generating a discussion. Our conclusions are tentative, and
certainly not the last word on the subject. There is an
obvious need for more research on cohabitation, and the findings of
new research, of course, could alter our thinking. What is
most important now, in our view, is a national debate on a topic
that heretofore has been overlooked. Indeed, few issues seem more
critical for the future of marriage and for generations to
come.

The National Marriage
Project

The National Marriage Project is a
nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative
supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the
State University of New Jersey.

The Project's mission is to provide
research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to
educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions
affecting marital success and wellbeing.

The National Marriage Project has five
immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual
index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in
America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults' attitudes
toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media's portrait of
marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and
expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family
experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.

For more information or additional copies
of this publication, contact:

The National Marriage Project
Rutgers
The State University of New
Jersey
25 Bishop Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181
(732) 932-2722
marriage@rci.rutgers.edu

2. Larry Bumpass and Hsien-Hen Lu.
1998. "Trends in Cohabitation and
Implications for Children's Family Contexts."
Unpublished manuscript,
Madison, WI: Center for Demography,
University of Wisconsin. The most
likely to cohabit are people aged 20 to
24.

3. J. G. Bachman, L. D. Johnston and
P. M. O'Malley. 1997. Monitoring the
Future: Questionnaire Responses from
the Nation's High School Seniors,
1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center
at the University of
Michigan.

4. The state statutes prohibiting
"adultery" and "fornication," which
included cohabitation, were not often
enforced.

5. Alfred DeMaris and K. Vaninadha
Rao. 1992. "Premarital Cohabitation
and Subsequent Marital Stability in the
United States: A Reassessment."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:
178-190.

6. See: Alfred DeMaris and William
MacDonald. 1993. "Premarital
Cohabitation and Marital Instability: A Test
of the Unconventional
Hypothesis." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 55: 399-407; William J.
Axinn and Arland Thornton. 1992. "The
Relationship Between Cohabitation
and Divorce: Selectivity or Causal
Influence." Demography 29-3:357-374;
Robert Schoen. 1992. "First Unions and the
Stability of First
Marriages." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 54:281-284; Elizabeth
Thomson and Ugo Colella. 1992. "Cohabitation
and Marital Stability:
Quality or Commitment?" Journal of Marriage
and the Family 54:259-267;
Lee A Lillard, Michael J. Brien, and Linda J.
Waite. 1995. "Premarital
Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital
Dissolution: A Matter of
Self-Selection?" Demography, Vol.
32-3:437-457; David R. Hall and John
Z. Zhao. 1995. "Cohabitation and Divorce in
Canada: Testing the
Selectivity Hypothesis." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 57:421-427;
Marin Clarkberg, Ross M. Stolzenberg, and
Linda Waite. 1995. "Attitudes,
Values, and Entrance into Cohabitational
versus Marital Unions." Socia
Forces 74-2:609-634; Stephen L. Nock.
1995. "Spouse Preferences of
Never-Married, Divorced, and Cohabiting
Americans." Journal of Divorce
and Remarriage 24-3/4:91-108.

7. Stephen L. Nock. 1995. "A
Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting
Relationships." Journal of Family Issues
16-1:53-76. See also: Robert
Schoen and Robin M Weinick. 1993. "Partner
Choice in Marriages and
Cohabitations." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 55:408-414.

8. William G. Axinn and Jennifer S.
Barber. 1997. "Living Arrangements
and Family Formation Attitudes in Early
Adulthood." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 59:595-611. See also Axinn and
Thornton. 1992. op.cit.,
and Elizabeth Thomson and Ugo Colella. 1992.
op. cit.

12. Albert Chevan. 1996. "As Cheaply
as One: Cohabitation in the Older
Population." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 58:656-666. According
to calculations by Chevan, the percentage of
noninstitutionalized,
unmarried cohabiting persons 60 years of age
and over increased from
virtually zero in 1960 to 2.4 in 1990, p.
659. See also R. G. Hatch.
1995. Aging and Cohabitation. New York:
Garland.

21. Jan E. Stets. 1991. "Cohabiting
and Marital Aggression: The Role of
Social Isolation." Journal of Marriage and
the Family 53:669-680. One
study found that, of the violence toward
women that is committed by
intimates and relatives, 42% involves a close
friend or partner whereas
only 29% involves a current spouse. Ronet
Bachman. 1994. "Violence
Against Women." Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics. p. 6

24. Bumpass and Lu. 1998. op.cit.
Using a different data set, however,
Deborah R. Graefe and Daniel T. Lichter
conclude that only about one in
four chilren will live in a family headed by
a cohabiting couple
sometime during childhood. "Life Course
Transitions of American
Children: Parental Cohabitation, Marriage,
and Single Motherhood."
Forthcoming: May, 1999. Demography
36.

25. It is the case, however,
that-just as with married couples--cohabiting
couples with children are less likely to
break up than childless
couples. Zheng Wu, "The Stability of
Cohabitation Relationships: The
Role of Children." 1995. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 57:231-236.

30. See, for example, Margo Wilson and
Martin Daly. 1987. "Risk of
Maltreatment of Children Living with
Stepparents," in R. Gelles and J.
Lancaster, eds. Child Abuse and Neglect:
Biosocial Dimensions, New York:
Aldine de Gruyter; Leslie Margolin. 1992.
"Child Abuse by Mothers'
Boyfriends: Why the Overrepresentation?"
Child Abuse and Neglect
16:541-551. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have
stated: "stepparenthood
per se remains the single most powerful risk
factor for child abuse that
has yet been identified." Homicide (New York:
Aldine de Gruyter, 1988)
p. 87-88.

31. Robert Whelan. 1993. Broken
Homes and Battered Children: A Study of
the Relationship Between Child Abuse and
Family Type. London: Family
Education Trust. See especially Table 12, p.
29. (Data are from the
1980s.) See also Patrick F. Fagan and Dorothy
B. Hanks. 1997. The Child
Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage,
Family and The American
Community. Washington, DC: The Heritage
Foundation.

36. R. Rindfuss and A. VanDenHeuvel.
1990. "Cohabitation: A Precursor to
Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?"
Population and Development
Review 16:703-726; Wendy D. Manning. 1993.
"Marriage and Cohabitation
Following Premarital Conception." Journal of
Marriage and the Family
55:839-850.

38. Arland Thornton, William G.
Axinn and Jay D. Treachman. 1995. "The
Influence of School Enrollment and
Accumulation on Cohabitation and
Marriage in Early Adulthood." American
Sociological Review
60-5:762-774; Larry L. Bumpass, James
A. Sweet, and Andrew
Cherlin.1991. "The Role of Cohabitation in
Declining Rates of Marriage."
Journal of Marriage and the Family
53:913-927.

39. Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J.
Smock. 1995. "Why Marry? Race and the
Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors."
Demography 32-4:509-520;
Wendy D. Manning and Nancy S. Landale, 1996.
"Racial and Ethnic
Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in
Premarital Childbearing."
Journal of Marriage and the Family
58:63-77; Laura Spencer Loomis and
Nancy S. Landale. 1994. "Nonmarital
Cohabitation and Childbearing Among
Black and White American Women." Journal of
Marriage and the Family
56:949-962; Robert Schoen and Dawn
Owens. 1992. "A Further Look at
First Unions and First Marriages." in S. J.
South and Stewart E. Tolnay,
eds., The Changing American Family. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press, p.
109-117.

42. Arland Thornton. 1991."Influence
of the Marital History of Parents on
the Marital and Cohabitational Experiences of
Children." American
Journal of Sociology 96-4:868-894; Kathleen
E. Kiernan. 1992. "The
Impact of Family Disruption in Childhood on
Transitions Made in Young
Adult Life." Population Studies 46:213-234;
Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen
E. Kiernan, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale.
1995. "Parental Divorce in
Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young
Adulthood." Demography,
32-3:299-318.

45. Toni Ihara and Ralph Warner.
1997. The Living Together Kit: A Guide for Unmarried Couples.
Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press, 8th edition. These contracts are not yet
upheld by all states, and their enforceability is often in
question.

46. Richard F. Tomasson. 1998.
"Modern Sweden: The Declining Importance of Marriage." Scandinavian
Review August 1998:83-89. The marriage rate in the United
States is two and a half times the Swedish rate.

47. This is one of the messages in
the runaway bestseller The Rules, by
Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider (New York:
Warner Books, 1995)